John Polyzogopoulos

Partner
Email    PDF    VCard
P: 416-593-2953
F: 416-594-5083
  • Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2000
  • LL.B., Osgoode Hall Law School, 1998
  • B.A., Economics, University of Toronto, 1995
John Polyzogopoulos
 Overview

John has a wealth of experience assisting clients with what he calls “Corporate Divorce” - helping business partners, shareholders and spouses disentangle their affairs when those relationships break down. John’s extensive experience in the resolution of business partnership disputes allows him to provide a practical, business-oriented perspective to the practice of family law.

John stands up for his clients in courts and tribunals, in direct negotiations with the other side, or through the use of alternative dispute resolution (mediations and arbitrations). He has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Nunavut Court of Justice and various court and tribunals in Ontario.

Through his sports law practice, John is lucky enough to be able to fuse his love for athletics with his career. He represents various amateur hockey and soccer associations, from the local to the national level, as well as athletes.

Franchising is a prominent business model in Ontario. John has experience helping both franchisors and franchisees resolve their business disputes under the very technical Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

John represents both plaintiffs and professionals in matters involving negligence and professional misconduct allegations against accountants, lawyers, engineers, financial advisors, insurance brokers, dental hygienists and others. By way of example, in 2014, he succeeded in having the conviction of his client for professional misconduct overturned because the client had been denied his right to a fair hearing. In another regulatory matter, John appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on a case that clarified the law on the applicable limitation period for the prosecution of securities-related offences and the standard of review on appeals from orders made by specialized tribunals.

Construction and real estate development are significant sectors of Ontario’s economy. John assists landlords, tenants, developers, builders, consultants, contractors and tradespeople in all forms of real estate, landlord-tenant and construction disputes, including under the Construction Lien Act, the Ontario New Home Warranty Plan Act (Tarion), and the Condominium Act, 1998.

John has extensive experience assisting clients with fraud detection and investigations, and in pursuing the fraudsters to recover his clients’ property. He uses various legal tools to get results, including mandatory and prohibitory injunctions (court orders to do or refrain from doing something), Mareva injunctions (asset freeze orders) and Anton Piller injunctions (civil search and seizure orders). He also helps clients in all aspects of banking and debtor-creditor litigation, including asset recovery, mortgage and security enforcement (power of sale) and financial restructuring law (bankruptcy and receiverships).

John has experience handling product liability cases, where defective products caused harm to people or property, as well as environmental contamination cases. In addition, John has acted both for and opposite various levels of government and is therefore familiar with the special considerations and challenges that can arise when government is involved.

Other areas in which John assists clients include defamation, privacy, class actions, the enforcement of non-competition covenants against departed employees or vendors of businesses, and foreign judgments.

John is the editor of the firm’s Commercial Litigation Update newsletter and a blog entitled “Blaneys Ontario Court of Appeal Summaries”, which is dedicated to summarizing all civil law decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on a weekly basis.

 Education
  • LL.B., Osgoode Hall Law School, 1998
  • B.A., Economics, University of Toronto, 1995
 Practice Areas  Called to the Bar
  • Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2000
 Assistant  Experience
  • Halton Standard Condominium Corp No 627 v Grandview Living Inc, [2015] OJ No 7060 (QL) (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    Successfully represented a developer against a condominium board in a precedent-setting case

  • Voudouris v Appeal Tribunal of the Certified General Accountants' Assn of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1865 (Ont Div Ct) -

    Successfully overturned a wrongful conviction of an accountant for professional misconduct

  • British Columbia (Securities Commission) v McLean, 2013 SCC 67 -

    Acted in an intervention on a securities law issue before the Supreme Court of Canada

  • Nunavut (Department of Community & Government Services) v Northern Transportation Co, 2011 NUCJ 4, 2010 NUCJ 5 -

    Effectively represented the Government of Nunavut (GN) in a complex multi-million dollar products liability claim brought by the GN against the suppliers of defective gasoline that damaged over 2,000 snowmobiles owned by Inuit and other residents of Nunavut

  • General Electric Canada Real Estate Financing Holding Co v Liberty Assisted Living Inc, 2011 ONSC 6199 -

    Acted for GE in enforcing its security, appointing an investigative receiver and obtaining a non-dissipation order against the debtors

  • Brisbin v Lunev, 2011 ONCA 15 -

    Acted for a prominent architectural firm in a contractional dispute that involved jurisdictional issues

  • West Hill Minor Hockey Assn v Scarborough Hockey Assn, [2009] OJ No 2171 (QL) (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    Acted for the Greater Toronto Hockey League, the world’s largest hockey league, in an internal governance dispute between the Scarborough Youth House League and West Hill Minor Hockey Association

  • Rannala v 1213321 Alberta Ltd, 2009 ONCA 659 -

    Acted for the plaintiff vendors in a dispute with the purchaser of the shares of a large kitchen cabinet manufacturer

  • Frayne v Holburn Business Systems Corp (2007), 156 ACWS (3d) 518 (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    Obtained a rare order for interim legal costs to be paid to his client by the other side before the case was to even be heard

  • Le Maitre Ltd v Segeren (2007), 33 BLR (4th) 224 (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    Successfully stopped a multi-million dollar transaction from proceeding at the behest of one shareholder who had not consulted or obtained approval for the deal from his client, resulting in a leading decision on the test for obtaining an injunction against a co-shareholder

  • Frontenac Ventures Corp. v Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, [2007] OJ No 3360 (QL) (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    Represented a First Nations band involving the blockade of uranium exploration on disputed aboriginal lands

  • Antonopoulos v Antonopoulos, [2006] OTC 105 (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    Successfully acted for husband in setting aside an order freezing the proceeds of sale of his interest in a business

  • Acted for a receiver to investigate and put into bankruptcy an individual who had perpetrated a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme fraud, as reported on CBC's "The National"

Recognition

 Speaking  Publications
 In the Media  News
 Blogs

Blog Posts

 Memberships

Memberships

  • Law Society of Upper Canada
  • Executive Committee Member and Co-Newsletter and Blog Editor, Civil Litigation Section, Ontario Bar Association
  • The Advocates’ Society
  • Toronto Lawyers Association
  • Member and Past President, Hellenic Canadian Lawyers’ Association
 Community

Community

  • Secretary, Civil Litigation Section Executive, Ontario Bar Association
  • Mentor, Ryerson University Law Practice Program, Law Society of Upper Canada Lawyer Licensing Program
  • Director, Hellenic Heritage Foundation, a charitable organization
  • Director, Pro Bono Community Legal Clinic, Hellenic Canadian Lawyers’ Association/Greek Community of Toronto/Pro Bono Law Ontario
DISCLAIMER

Thank you for your interest in contacting us by email.

Please be aware that contacting us via e-mail does not mean that the firm is acting for the sender of the e-mail. People do not become clients unless and until the firm agrees to act and that representation will be confirmed in a retainer agreement or retainer letter, in accordance with our usual policies. Unless you are an existing client, no information provided in an e-mail will be considered confidential. We ask that you do not send us specific questions on any matter until you receive confirmation that we are able to represent you.